Anime review: "Berserk"

"Berserk" is among the first anime I have ever watched (among first 10, of more than 200 that I watched until now) and it was one of my favorite ever. I even read the manga, at least the published volumes at the time. Curiously, the manga is still ongoing after more than 20 years! So when I saw that something new from the franchise has been coming out, I was excited. My excitement waxed when I saw it was a collection of three movies with the same material as the original anime series, but there was no chance in me missing that. So when the movies were finally dubbed, I jumped right at them...

These three movies in "Berserk" franchise depict the youth of the main protagonist, Guts. A parent-less child, he has grown up with a mercenary band and later become a freelancer wielding in impossibly big sword. During one his jobs, a siege, he single-handedly slays a famous mercenary. This attracts the attention of the Band of the Hawk and their charismatic leader, young Griffith. Initial reluctant, Guts is forced to join them, but later he distinguishes himself and become one of the leaders, strucking a great friendship with Griffith and love-hate relationship with Casca, another young, but female leader. The Band exploits the long-lasting war between Tudor and Midland, so much that King of Midland promotes them to nobility...

I realized that I almost described the whole plot of the movies... The reason for it is that these three movies depict only the "Golden Age arc", which is only the prequel of this story. The real action actually starts after, but this story is also very interesting. Especially when the more fantastic elements of it come forward: the Crimson Behelit, Zodd the Immoral, the God Hand... After mostly classical medieval fighting anime, this aspect of anime is very surprising and increases the tensions... Especially when the Eclipse comes!

"Berserk" belongs to dark fantasy and action genres, with lots of fighting, blood and violence. It is somewhere between shounen and seinen series. I really liked the setting, which changes much from realistic medieval to full fantasy, including a lot of themes. As setting, character change and grow (or descend) during the anime. It is no wonder this is one of most appreciated mange for lots of people.

But this is all applicable to the series itself; but what about these three movies?

The movies are pretty much true to the manga, but they skip some of the details. To those unfamiliar to prior anime or manga, this shouldn't mean much by itself. But on the other way, the original anime, "Kenpuu Denki Berserk", which was 25 episodes long, had much more room to show details and establish a more complex setting and provide the viewers with full "Berserk" experience.

Also, the "Golden Age" arc is not the beginning of "Berserk" manga. Mange starts with current Guts (I will avoid spoilers) and his fight against Apostles, and then he has a long flashback to his past - which is actually the "Golden Age" arc. Original anime follows this principle so it is more successful in hooking new fans. These movies concentrate solely on the "Golden Age" which, in my opinion, is poorer choice. Because, if they have any attention to continue the plot with new movies (and I read rumors that they do plan so), they will be forced to skip this part.

One of the most notable aspects of this anime is the very extensive use of CGI animation. While I don't like it myself, some people do - but I think that most will agree it was done not so good here. It just doesn't look natural. It has some advantages, like that architecture is very detailed and realistic, but moving people are just bad and too generic.

The anime stays true to violent nature of "Berserk", which means that there is a lot (really, a lot) of blood, nudity, sex, violence. When I saw the animation, I though they will "adapt" the show to wider audience; but they didn't and I appreciate that.

I don't remember the music from the original anime, but here is very good.

The final verdict? Even though I liked this new adaptation of "Berserk", I would not really recommend it. For those unfamiliar to the series, I would direct them to the original anime "Kenpuu Denki Berserk", which captures the feeling and experience of manga much better - this version is inferior in this respect. The movies are not bad, but I would really recommend the only to those who haven't watched or read "Berserk" for long time and just want a quick reminder. To everybody else, go watch the original.

Movie reviews: "Jack Reacher" and "Iron Man 3"

This week I have watched two movies.

First I watched at my friend's place, "Jack Reacher". Before watching, I knew that it starred Tom Cruise and I didn't have any expectations from it.

After a former US sniper-specialist James Barr gets framed for murdering of 6 innocent people in broad-daylight, his only chance is Jack Reacher, an ex-military policeman and investigator. Together with his defender Helen, he tries to find how and why did Barr get framed. What they discover will endanger their lives...

"The law has limits. He does not." This writes on the movie poster and describes the movie perfectly. The movie starts as a thriller and ends as a action movie with big gun-showdown. And throughout the movie, Tom Cruise is best in anything he does: he is a brilliant investigator with photographic memory, a confident ladies-man, a skilled martial-artist and of course the impeccable marksman.

If Tom Cruise's character was replaced with a team of three or four people that shared his skills, this would be very believable movie. But even so, "Jack Reacher" is not a bad movie. It has a nice and intriguing plot that keeps you guessing what will happen next, few comic scenes and nice action. If you don't have big expectations, you could have a nice time with this film, as I did.

And this weekend I went to the movies to watch the new "Iron Man 3". I am not very versed in "Iron Man" setting, but when I learned that this movie features Mandarin, his arch-enemy, it made me have big expectations.

The "Iron Man 3" is set after the last (and first) "The Avengers" movie. Tony Stark is without any real occupation, wasting time in his basement and suffering from anxiety attacks that are the consequence of events from "The Avengers". But now USA is threatened by a new villain, a terrorist known as Mandarin, who is somewhat connected with the group called AIM and biologist Maya Hanses, one of Stark's ex-conquests.

Well, without wading into spoilers, let's just say that Mandarin was a the same time a disappointment and hilarious surprise. My girlfriend, who had no expectations, found it (and the movie itself) great, while I was mildly dissatisfied.

The movie is fun, fun, fun with occasional action. Robert Downey Jr. really goes well with Iron Man role and is very funny in it. I also expected more focus on Iron Man suits, but the movie goes, let's say, back to the roots.

Of course, the movie is technologically ridiculous: there was something about "recalibrating the ISDN servers on van's roof". Also, the whole idea a mechanic can make and repair a suit is nonsensical, but you just have to accept it.

From some scenes at the end of the movie, it can be implied that this is the last movie in this sequence. But I just checked on Wikipedia and it says that we can expect at least one more movie with Downey Jr. as Iron Man (although it is not confirmed).

But all in all, "Iron Man 3" is a funny and exciting movie and I would recommend it to anybody who wants to enjoy an evening in nice action, humor and special effects.

Movie review: "Anna Karenina"

Yesterday I went to movies with my girlfriend to watch "Anna Karenina". It was originally her idea, but I didn't have anything against it.

Even though I was a passionate reader since I was ten, for some reason I (successfully) avoided most of high-school proscribed reading, including "Anna Karenina". I was vaguely familiar with the story, as much as I remembered from a book with short analysis of plot and characters for high-school books, but in general, I didn't know anything about the movie.

The story of "Anna Karenina" is a tragedy, revolving about three central characters in 19th century Russia. Karenin (played by Jude Law) is a high-positioned noble and politician, orthodox, strict but respected for his moral and ethical principles - but at the same time he is shown as cold and distanced, especially toward his family. Anna (Keira Knightley) is his wife, at the beginning of the movie displayed as happy with his marriage and especially their son, and loyal to her husband. She actually reprehends her cousin for being angry at her husband for cheating on her and manipulates her into forgiving him. But this changes after a chance encounter with young and dashing Count Vronsky - a pampered noble with eye for beauty, sweet tongue and flowery manners. An unexpected happens and these two unlikely people fall in love, and later to obsession, which damages their lives and especially Karenin family. There is also a secondary story, dealing with another young and shy noble Levin and his love toward Princess Kitty.

The story is good, but center of this movie is its characters, primary the central trio. As I expected from a renowned literary classic, characters are great and complex. The best notion for me is that no one is described as negative: all three are just people, with their personalities, caught in facts of life, love and passion. Though, I was surprised that at the end I was putting most blame on Anna - I don't know if this was intended by the movie-makers, or it was projected from my own beliefs and personality. I am even tempted to read the book to find out.

I liked the acting, even though I am not fan of Keira Knightley. But even more I liked the semi-breaking of the fifth wall: during the changes of scenes, characters are shown as traveling through theater sets; when important things are happening, supporting characters "freeze". I also liked the costumes and small details about Imperial Russia. The music was very good, even to me who usually don't notice such things.

All in all, I really enjoyed "Anna Karenina". If you don't like romances or dramas, avoid this movie. But for everybody else, the movie is never boring, has great and interesting characters and is very intense.

Movie review: "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 2"

Yesterday I went with my girlfriend to cinema to watch the last part of "The Twilight Saga", "Breaking Dawn - Part 2". Few review I saw before prepared to for a very bad movie - so I was pretty surprised to actually enjoy the movie.

"Breaking Dawn - Part 2" takes immediately after the first part. After surviving the transition to a vampire and successful birthing of Renesmee, Bella is adapting to her new circumstances. Sometime later, Renesmee is discovered by another vampire, who reports it to the Volturi (some kind of vampire nobility) who decide to destroy her as a possible threat to their species. Cullens, of course, are not ready to accept this and they start the search for allies for the final battle...

If you hate "The Twilight Saga", this movie will not change your opinion, and you will go to watch it only to spoil it to those who like it. If you love it, they you won't care what anybody think about it. Sure, you can easily find a lot of objections, fails and obvious mistakes/blunders in this movie (and previous ones). Of course, a lot (bad) could be said about the series itself. But if you can accept few inconsistencies and sleazy parts, movie is quite fun to watch.

First, it is partly a freak show - but in good way, like superhero movies (especially like "X-Men"). There are lots of different vampires with different sets of skills. Second, this is a classical fight between David and Goliath, a fight against unfair government that unites seemingly incompatible characters. Thirdly, there is a very unexpected trick in this movie (and it would be a big spoiler to reveal it). Some will probably feel cheated, but I was delighted by it. And last, there are some good jokes here.

My biggest objection to the movie was the decapitations - you will know it when you see it. That looked completely stupid.

Anyway, I had quite fun watching "Breaking Dawn - Part 2" and think it is probably the best movie in the series. But as I was never a fan, I won't feel sorry that it is done.

Oh yes - yesterday I saw trailers for three similar teen movies, one actually based on book by Stephenie Meyer...

Movie reviews: "Taken 2" and "The Dark Knight Rises"

Two more movie I watched in last week, but I haven't had time to review them.

"Taken 2" I watched last weekend in cinema with my girlfriend. For some reason, girls like this film. My girlfriend loved the first part and insisted on watching the second one; her female friends at work all liked it; and the projection was full of women (I was the only guy in my seat-row) - which is strange because similar action movies usually don't attract many women.

Anyway, "Taken 2" is an average action thriller, differentiated from the first part only in details of setting and plot. Bryan Mills (played again by Liam Neeson), a retired CIA agent, finally succeeds in getting on good terms with his ex-wife, and invites her and their daughter Kim to visit him in Turkey after he finishes his part-time job as bodyguard. They accept and start what they expect to be a nice vacation. But they don't know that after Bryan's rampaging in Paris (topic of the first part), Albanian mafia-boss decided to revenge people he killed. Albanians succeed in taking Bryan and his ex-wife, but they miss Kim, who's only option is to free her father...

There is not much to say about this movie - a peaceful re-introduction of Mills' family, preparation for the plot, and then action, action, action. I've never had a notion of Liam Neeson as action-movies star, but he actually fits it. In my opinion, he's a bit too good in these two movies - which is one of the reasons I don't like these movies. There is some humor, mostly based on Bryan not being used to normal family interactions.

The worst part of the movie was the car chase toward the end - I usually don't like them, but I hate them when they are performed by a teen without her license... Also, I understand when foreigners speak English in public, but why they use it between themselves in private (especially after they have been shown speaking in their own language).

But all in all, "Taken 2" is not a bad movie, except if you totally hate action movies. Not something that I would really recommend, but neither a movie to avoid at all costs.

For "The Dark Knight Rises" I had some great expectations, after watching "The Dark Knight" two weeks ago.

Eight years after events in the previous movie, both Batman and Bruce Wayne have retired from public. Gotham is celebrating Harvey Dent as a hero, and police (given larger authorities after Dent's death) managed to clean the city of criminals. But they don't know what is preparing for them: a corrupted businessman Daggett has hired a strange masked mercenary Bane and they plan to take over Gotham using Wayne Industries' own resources. All this will force Batman once again to come out of hiding, even though he is not welcome in his city anymore...

"The Dark Knight Rises" has some great ideas: retired Batman broken and without hope; superior mercenary Bane with his army of fanatical followers; Gotham under siege that makes Joker's look like a child game; mysterious origins of Bane... But the movie fails in developing these concepts as they deserve.

This is not a short movie (two and a half hours), but it feels very, very rushed. I don't understand why haven't they added another hour or split it in two episodes. For example, there is a 6-month long siege of a whole city, but they only show first and last few days. They should have used it more to show the desperation of citizens, except being only a plot tool to show Batman as ultimate action hero. And Bane - they failed to use him miserably. We don't know almost anything about him (and I don't count those two info-dumps): how does he attract his followers and why are they ready to die for him so willingly? They made him look very impressive; such big guy giving all those philosophical (almost prophetic) speeches (Tom Hardy's voice was brilliant), but they should revealed more details. Neither did the other elements feel right: Batman's/Wayne's relationships with Selina, Blake and Miranda all felt forced and fake.

Another objection I have is that all felt too neat. There is even a definition for such plots where everything is placed in such place that it guarantees hero's victory (Batman Gambit), but they pushed it over the board. Especially with the Pit, and that doctor...

Action felt very subdued in the movie, and I can't really pinpoint any scene as very impressive. Batman's gadget also didn't get much attention - although I liked that trick with rotating wheels on Batcycle.

Unfortunately, I have to conclude that "The Dark Knight Rises" was a big disappointment in my eyes, after such great previous movie. I don't feel sorry for watching it, but I do feel sorry for the wasted potential.

Movie reviews: "The Dark Knight" and "Fracture"

This weekend I watched two movies, both a bit older.

At my friend's place, we watched "The Dark Knight". This is an older hit and my friend actually watched it, but I haven't and I wanted to be familiar with it before watched its sequel, "The Dark Knight Rises".

"The Dark Knight" is a part of the of the Batman series, that started with "Batman Begins" in 2005 (it looks I should have watched this one again). This "episode" involves Joker as main villain, but also features Harvey "Two-Face" Dent - both of them were villains in previous movies before reboot.

Main difference between the older moviev and this one is that the latter is a dark and gritty movie, as is appropriate regarding contemporary trends. I really liked it - Joker in the original "Batman" was crazy, but here he is really psychotic and scary (played marvelously be Heath Ledger). Batman (played by Christian Bale) is on the other hand angsty (but not too much to be irritating) and gritty. Two-Face (Aaron Eckhart) is also a great character - his journey from idealistic crime-fighter to a manipulated villain is interesting to watch. Other characters are also great, and played by big starst: Michael Cain, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, and Eric Roberts.

But there is one flaw of this movie. Basically, this movie is one bit "Xanatos Speed Chess" game between Batman and Joker. I am a fan of this trope and enjoy it, but you have to know when to stop it. And here, it was played a bit over-board. Not much to be really bad, but plans-inside-plans and constant turnovers were a bit tiring after two and half hours.

But all in all, "The Dark Knight" is a great addition to the Batman franchise, and I think that I will enjoy the sequel as much.

The other movie that I watched was "Fracture" from 2007. It is a classical cat-and-mouse game between a young and successful public attorney Willy Beachum (played well by Ryan Gosling) and genius engineer Ted Crawford (play even better by Anthony Hopkins). Ted kills his wife for having an affair, but he prepares it so that he can't be convicted. Willy, on the other hand, is transferring to big private law firm and is not really enthusiastic about this case, until he realizes how easy Ted manipulates him and others.

Movie is really interesting, but it had one big, big flaw. The key move is shown at the beginning - I don't know was this my lucky guess, directory sloppiness and actual intention (like in the "Columbo" movies). But I kept waiting for some other thing arises, and when it didn't, I was disappointed.

But all in all, "Fracture" is a pretty good movie, one to watch in a lazy Sunday afternoon.

Movie review: "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides"

This weekend I watched "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides" with my girlfriend. I liked first three movies in PotC series, and the fact that this part is based upon a very good book of the same title by Tim Powers was an additional treat. That is, until I watched the movie.

"Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides" has the weakest plot of the movies from the series so far. It features Jack Sparrow in search for the Fountain of Youth, sometimes with and sometimes against notorious captain Blackbeard. In this mess are also included long known characters as Master Gibbs and Captain Barbossa, and some new one as Angelica (ex-nun, daughter of Blackbeard and Jack's past love), Ponce de Leon, Spanish Armada, sirens... PotC movies were always flamboyant, but usually there was some sense and consistency to the plot - now there is almost none. And connection to "On Stranger Tides" by Tim Powers is almost nonexistent - there is some voodoo present, and I presume that character of Philip is loosely based on early Jack Chandagnac from the book. Characters are also worse than in previous movies, without much sparks - I especially disliked Barbossa this time.

All in all, quite disappointment if you expected much from this movie, whether you like first three movies or the book it is allegedly based upon. On the other hand, "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides" is decent enough pirates-based comedy for a lazy afternoon, to watch with your family.

Movie review: "The Avengers"

This weekend my girlfriend and I went to movies to watch "The Avengers". Not her first choice, but neither she was really against it. I intentionally did not want to go last weekend, hoping to avoid the biggest crowds. In the end, we were both satisfied. I have been following "The Avengers" hype for some time, although passively - I like super-hero franchises, but I am not really a fan. So I knew what to expect of the movie and it turned out I was pretty realistic in my expectations.

"The Avengers" is a movie that combines and continues several movies starring super-heroes: Iron-Man (watched both and liked), Thor (watched and liked), Captain America (didn't watch, heard it was not good), Hulk (didn't watch) and Black Widows and Hawkeye (don't have movies). It also features the agency S.H.I.E.L.D., which was mentioned and played parts in mentioned movies. The plot is pretty simple: S.H.I.E.L.D. has been tampering with some alien artifact called Teserakt and accidentally freed Loki (a villain from "Thor" movie), with a little bit of help from his new allies, Chitauri. He steals the Teserakt, abducts some scientist and agents and escapes in unknown direction with nothing good on his mind. In reaction, S.H.I.E.L.D. gathers restarts the Avengers initiative, which has a goal of centering all Earth's superheroes and ally them against common foe. They are later joined with Thor who comes to Earth to put his brother Loki to order. Considering their strength, the Avengers should not have any trouble defeating Loki, except two tinny problems: they have to find out what Loki's plan is, and they have to overcome their own differences (which are pretty big).

This movie takes after "Iron Man 2" in atmosphere - flashy, fast, lots of high-tech gadgets, much of ironic banter. As I said, it is not a plot-driven movie. Although it lasts more than two hours, it is all about characters, and some about the setting. This means that it is mostly oriented to those who like the franchises and will be able to disregard weak plot. To me, it also looked like they wanted to introduce the setting and prepare the field for the second Avengers movie or other connected movies. Characters were interesting enough, and humor was quite good and successful.

In my opinion, the only flaw of the movie was the weakness of the enemies. Loki was more of a daze and confuse mind-bending player, so it OK if he is physically week (even though he is a god). But I really expected much more from the Chitauri, considering how they were announced and referenced. Also, the ending reminded me much of "The Transformers 3" trailer I saw (didn't see the movie, yet).

All in all, "The Avengers" is a standard super-hero movie multiple several times (considering all the big-name super-heroes). If you like such movies, you will love it. Even if you don't, the movie has a bit of everything to offer: humor, action, Scarlett Johansson for guys, Chris Hemsworth for girls... Just don't expect some plot-heavy intelligent drama, and you will not be disappointed - because this is THE super-hero movie.

Movie review: "Man on a Ledge"

Few days ago I stumbled at my friend's home while they were watching "Man on the Ledge". Another friend watched in the movies some time ago and was full of praise for it. But to the rest of us, this movie was a big disappointment.

The premise is OK. An ex-cop escapes from jail, where he was put for stealing some big diamond. After weeks of hiding, he arrives to a hotel in New York, rents a room, and eats a fancy dinner, after which he steps out of the windows on a ledge, where he threatens to jump if police-negotiator Lydia Mercer doesn't attend to his wishes. But is a suicide his real intention?

As I said, a good idea, but the execution is poor. The problem is that this movie can't decide what it really is. Is it a crime investigation, or heist-movie, or action comedy? Elements are introduced to the plot just to be abandoned later. Also, the banter between the brother and his girlfriend, even though was intended to be funny, sound forced and irritating. And ending, it is first predictable, and second, using deus ex machina (with the receptionist real identity). Acting was also unimpressive, especially Ed Harris.

Even though "Man on a Ledge" is not a completely bad movie, it is not something I would recommend you to spend money or time on. But if you have nothing to do, it can serve...

Movie review: "Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy"

Last week my girlfriend and I decided to go to movies and "Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy" was the only movie with good enough description and playing at acceptable time. Garry Oldman was also one of the reasons I wanted to watch it.

The premise of the movie is very simple and straightforward: Cold War England, head-quarters of intelligence service, retired famous spy, a traitor.

This straightforwardness is at the same time the best and worst part of it. This is really a hard-core Cold War spy movie: there is not much action; characters take much time revisiting past and thinking why someone acted as he has. There is some stealing of documents, pretending that you are somebody else... If you like such movies, you will be very satisfied. But on the other hand, this is not anything more than a spy movie. In first few minutes you learn that there is a traitor, and in last few minutes you learn who it was - everything between is one curvy, but single line.

Performance of this movie is really on the top level. Member of the secret service are all a bit eccentric, so there is much humor, but it is of that quiet and intelligent type. On the other side, there are also few hard and cruel scenes, because life of a professional spy is such. Beginning of the movie is somewhat slow, where nothing happens. Gary Oldman is a main actor, but in first half hour, I don't think he says a word (although he is on screen). There are also few other famous British actor, so this part is good.

All in all, "Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy" is not a movie to be excited about (except if you are a fan), but a good enough movie for anyone.

Movie review: "Breaking Dawn - Part 1"

I've been having a stream of busy days, so I keep being late with my blogs. I watched "Breaking Dawn - Part 1" the weekend before last, but I didn't have the time nor the real will to write it. I mainly watched this movie because my girlfriend was a fan of books and the first movie. Now even she is not sure whether will she watch the last part.

"Breaking Dawn" is an expected sequel of plot started in previous movies. After all problems that have had, Bella and Edward are finally getting married. Their wedding will prove to be a hard thing to swallow for few, especially for Jacob, but it will at last made them happy. But during the dreamlike honeymoon, Bella will end pregnant, which could prove to be a problem nobody expected, especially when the baby start to suck the life of her mother.

There is not much to say about this movie. If you are a fan, you will watch it, but not necessarily like it. If you have it, then you are not even interested in this. For those who went only as a company for somebody and don't have any firm opinion of the serial, you don't have to be afraid - the movie is not bad too much.

Sure, you will understand more if you have watched previous movies because characters don't get much introduction, but you don't have to know past events because the plot is pretty much self-sufficient. If you think a little about it, this part deals with a serious problem (abortion), although I am not sure what would  be the final message. First part of the movie has some sleazy jokes (the wedding) and is somewhat slow (the honeymoon), but later the pace speed up.

Of course, the characters are still over-dramatic and fake, but not obnoxiously so - either they got better or I got used to it. The movie actually makes fun of itself (the graduate hats and this) which can be only applauded.

All in all, "Breaking Down" is not a movie I would recommend anybody to watch (too weak for fans, too bad for the rest), but it is not a total disaster and one can even enjoy the second half of it.

Movie review: "Immortals"

This Saturday I went with my girlfriend to the movie to watch "Immortals". We decided this on impulse, so I didn't know anything about the movie, except that it was somehow connected to the Greek mythology. In front of the movies, I notice a movie poster saying something on the line "made by the same people who made 300", which was a turn-off for me, because I didn't like "300". More so, before entering we met two friends, of whom one claimed the movie was terrible, while other said it was OK. So you can expect that I wasn't very thrilled for the prospect of watching it.

"Immortals" is very, very loosely based of few Greek myths. We have King Hyperion (marvelously played by Mickey Rourke), a crazy and violent ruler, who decided to take revenge on god because they didn't answer his prayers. His revenge consists of finding the Epirus bow and using it to free the Titans, who will then presumably kill the God. Since he is not on best terms with humanity also, he gathered an army, turned them to blood-crazy torturers and went postal all over Greece. We then have Theseus, who is a simple villager trained by Zeus (my friend who didn't like the movie argued that Theseus is son of Zeus, but there was no implicit claim on that; one of his co-villager said that his mother was raped by some villager and that Theseus is a product of that rape). After attack on his village by Hyperion and his sentence to salt-mines, he will there met a Prophetess Phaedra, who will mark him as Greece's only hope for salvation. With a band of fellow prisoners, he will start a journey to stop Hyperion and his mad plan...

Some spoilers ahead...

Though, it is not a spoiler to say that Theseus will win. Let's face it: "Immortals" is just this kind of movie when that main character is a good guy and he has to win. If you accept this fact and see this movie just as an action hit with cool 3D effects, you can have a good time watching it. Plot is not overly predictable, actor are not too bad (except Rourke, there is no more stars) and action is good. Just be prepared to large amount of blood, gore and violence.

But, have they changed one small detail in movie, things could have been much different. If Hyperion and Titans won (and I don't buy that vision at the end), I would say this is the best movie I watched in last five years! I mean, for the whole movie Hyperion is on the go, killing and raping everybody, having the largest army ever: he looks unstoppable. And then we have this one guy, good with sword, but just one guy. Care to guess who will win? Theseus was down, with knife-hole in his stomach and severely beaten by Hyperion. If in that moment Hyperion stick his knife in him and calmly walked away, I would have stand on my feed and give it a clap. Creators of this movie had a perfect chance to make a biggest surprise since "The Sixth Sense".

As it is, "Immortals" is a decent enough action blockbuster with 3D effects. Lower your expectation and have a good time with it.

Comment: "The Lord of the Rings" movie trilogy

For the last several weeks I re-watched "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy with my girlfriend. We have been both busy, so we couldn't connect enough time to watch whole episode in one sitting (and these movies ARE long), so the whole thing dragged for some time. Because of this I won't make a usual review, but will just write some comments.

First, I really like LOTR. I have read those books over dozen times: while I was a member of library, I used to read them one a year at least. I read and liked "The Hobbit", "The Silmarillion", etc. I also watched the movies at least four times completely and lots of times in fragments (when they were played on TV). My firm opinion is that a person cannot be a serious epic-fantasy fan without liking Tolkien. Sure, there are better books, longer, more complex, more realistic, etc. Sure, Tolkien had flaws, like with female characters or black-and-white morality. Nevertheless, "The Lord of the Rings" is still one of best things epic fantasy can offer: rich and complex setting, numerous and detailed characters, excellent writing, and what is most important, feel of epic that can be used to describe and define this whole genre.

After all this said, I have to admit that I didn't like the movies this time. I don't know is that because of my growing up (last time I read these books I was in second or third year of colleague, some 5-6 years ago; now I have a job and steady relationship, although reading is still one of my priorities) or because all those excellent books I read in the meantime. Except LOTR, library had first four volumes of ASoIaF, "Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn" trilogy and first two R. Scott Bakker's volumes to show from epic fantasy genre (there were tons of low-fantasy books, like different Forgotten Realms series) and since then I have read a lot of best-selling epic fantasy series (WoT, Feist, Eddings, Erikson...). Nevertheless, I still have fond memories of LOTR and I don't think I would find the books less valuable now. But this time I couldn't enjoy in good sides of the movies; instead I was constantly nagged by flaws.

I know that they couldn't fit the whole book in this short time and that some compromises had to be made. It is normal to dismiss details of settings and less important characters and I think that right choices were done in this department. What I seriously dislike are the simplifications and alterations that were made to draw a wider audience (what they call a Hollywoodization).

First movie is very decently done and I don't think I have anything to complain here. There is one of my favorite scenes ("You shall not pass!"), which was done superbly. They dropped many things from introductory parts (run from Shire, Tom Bombadil), but that understandable and it's more important the movie kept the feeling of the book (except the wizard fight). Second movie is more questionable. I really liked how they captured the anger of the Ents, but lots of things get mauled. They concentrated on the battle of Helm's Deep, which is far from the central point of book; also, fight was overly-dramatized. Saruman is second big complaint: he is shown as evil characters, corrupted and weak; while he is all this, he is far more complex. Third movie was the worst. There were too many changes and I didn't like any scene with Aragorn. They made the same mistake with Denethor as with Saruman. The siege of Minas Tirith looks to easy... List of complaints is long.

I was always proud to talk with non-reader about LOTR books, how complex and good they are. With movies, this wasn't the case; I often felt obligated to defend the books because of someone's bad opinion of movies. I will be watching "Game of Thrones" soon, so I did they do an excellent job with it, or just decent.

Movie review: "What's Your Number?"

Last Saturday I unexpectedly ended in movies. Girlfriend and I couldn't agree what to watch, so we decided to go to soonest-playing movie acceptable to both of us, which turned out to be a romantic comedy "What's Your Number?" From description I expected this to be something of a girls-movie (contrary to e.g. "Bad Teacher", which was more boys-movie), which was true, but I didn't have any problem with watching it. If you like romantic comedies, I don't see any reason you shouldn't like this.

After being left by another boyfriend and losing her job at same day, Ally also finds out that average number of men for woman to sleep with is 10. After some recounting, she comes with the number 19, which doesn't help her mood so she decides that the next persons she sleeps with will be her husband. This fails after her sister engagement party; so not to breach critical number 20, only option left for her is to "use" some of her ex-boyfriends. So she decides to find each of her past loves, with the help of her neighbor and ladies-man Colin.

What follows is stream of bizarre and crazy ex-boyfriends, with other expected plot-devices. Nevertheless, movie was interesting during whole play-time (106 minutes) and I had some good laughs. What more can you expect from a romantic comedy?

It turns out, the movie has a deeper message. In one moment, her mother says "Ally, stop being creative". I think this is a horrible thing for a parent to say. Second part of the movie very clearly promotes idea of being who you are and not changing just to satisfy others.

Another thing that comes to mind is the main actress (Anna Faris). I found her strangely familiar, but only after reading it on IMDB this I realize that it is the same actress that starred in "Scary Movie". If I didn't read it, I would never guess. Other than her, I recognized nobody, but acting was OK for comedy of such caliber.

A very good movie if you don't expect more than fun, with hidden serious message.

Movie review: "Contagion"

Yesterday, unplanned, I went with my girlfriend to watch "Contagion" to movies. Thankfully, without 3D...

"Contagion", as the name says, is a movie about a deadly virus spreading uncontrollably and killing a large part of human population. There are lots of movies and shows about this topic ("The Stand", with fantasy-religious elements; "Outbreak", a more militaristic version; "I Am Legend", with zombies...), but for some reasons, they are always popular (actually, as all movie of catastrophe are). This version relies on very realistic approach and strong movie cast.

The movie follows the progress and events around new and unknown virus. It has several points of views on the same plot. We have the review of last days of life of first victim (played by Gwyneth Paltrow), moderately successful continuation of life of her husband (played by Matt Damon) and his daughter, who has tough time adapting to the necessary isolation. Then we have dr. Mears (played by Kate Winslet) who is primary in charge of the outbreak and bravely goes into the diseased population; her boss dr. Cheever (Laurence Fishburne) who is desperately trying to organize investigation of cure while being constantly pressed by public and military; dr. Orantes (Marion Cottilard), a WHO member who is sent to search for the source of the virus. We even have a "bad guy", blogger Alan Krumwiede (Jude Law), who doesn't hesitate to use this catastrophe for his own promotion. These main stories are often interrupted with random inserts showing the degradation of society as the panic grows...

All in all, "Contagion" is very good movie, with obvious high budget and very good cast. It is easy to watch, but it has some depth on the other side. A very good way to spend two hours.

Movie review: "Krull"

I usually don't watch TV, but last Saturday I was resting from very tiring week. I was accidentally passing by when my younger brother was just starting to watch some old-looking fantasy movie, so I joined him (I missed first 30 minutes or so). I checked TV-schedule later and found out the movie's name was "Krull". I heard it mentioned few times over years but didn't know pretty much anything about it.

The plot is simple: a mysterious mountain lands on medieval-ish planet Krull. The owner of the mountain, the monstrous Beast, captures some princess, so her fiancée (or want-to-be fiancée; as I said I missed the beginning) gather a band of fugitives and few mystics and monsters to save her. First find the weapon, then the information, then the magical beasts for transport, and so on...

I think this is one of the most predictable films I ever watched. The movie follows tropes to the letter; on the other hand, it is possible that it actually started them in the first place. For example, when someone is killed by enemy fire, the rest of the gang will all stop and watch him for some time, although they are still under fire...

Acting is terrible and special effects even more so. I mean, really bad. Sound effects (especially the sound of those "rifles") started to give me a headache. On the other hand, these were the state-of-the-art effects at the time the movie was filmed.

All in all, "Krull" is one of the worst movies I watched in last several years. But on the other hand, it has that melancholic spirit of classic fantasy. Don't expect anything valuable from this movie, but if you are a fantasy fan (as I am) it can be entertaining to watch something of an establishing movie of this genre.

Main problem of this movie is that has been copied (good or bad) so much that you recognize all jokes and points immediately. I had this same problem when I read "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams - I already knew all the jokes.

Several movie reviews: "Forgetting Sarah Marshall", "Cowboys & Aliens", "Bad Teacher", "The Lovely Bones"

In past weeks I watched several movies that I didn't have the time or was lazy to review. With this post I am making a compromise with myself and I will write a paragraph for each movie.

"Forgetting Sarah Marshall" is a light romantic comedy starring Jason Segel (never heard of him), Mila Kunis and Kristen Bell. Peter (Segel), after being left by his long-time girlfriend Sarah (Bell) decides to go to Hawaii to forget her. Unfortunately, she is also there, with her boyfriend, to make things worse. What follows is a typical for this kind of movies: fights, some romance, meeting crazy locals, some dirty scenes... All in all, I was very satisfied with this movie: jokes were very good, no shameful moment and it features a very good in-movie song. A recommendation for those who like romantic comedies.

"Cowboys & Aliens" was expected to be a hit of this summer, but I would skip this movie. Maybe if you are younger than 10 this movie could work for you. It features Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford, although I don't count this as a plus. I can't say much about this movie because I wasn't really concentrating on it and I left before the end.

"Bad Teacher" is on the other hand a straightforward comedy, starring Cameron Diaz, Justin Timberlake and Jason Segel (ha, I didn't notice before). I don't usually like Diaz, but she was actually good in this movie. She plays a young woman who, after being dumped by her fiancée, is forced to work in high-school. She is not very likeable: she likes men only because of money, she curses, smokes pot, steals from students... What you expect is that she changes toward the end and becomes a nice person. Well, this is only partially true. I liked this movie and I think it is a good evening watch for those who can stomach a teen-comedy.

"The Lovely Bones" is a hit from few years ago. It is a story of young girl who gets killed by a perverted serial killer. Instead going to Heaven, she gets stuck somewhere between because she is not ready to leave yet. So she follow the life of her family (dad is Mark Wahlberg and mum Rachel Weisz), her sister, her almost-boyfriend and her killer (Stanley Tucci) for few more years. It is a slow, hard movie, something between thriller and fantasy. I didn't like it after watching it whole. Thriller parts were OK, but there are better such movies (like "Zodiac Killer" I watched few months ago). Fantasy parts were mostly confusing, overlong and ultimately unnecessary. I ending was something of anticlimax. Even though I didn't like the end, I would recommend it to everybody who can concentrate for two hours.